Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Still More Room

OK, time to make space for more comments. Please everyone, try to keep your comments under the most recent post. If not, they may not get read, by me or anyone else.

263 comments:

  1. Thanks DocG, this wasn't here yet when I posted about beaver hair.
    Just wanted others to know that beaver hair is also used in paint brushes, shaving brushes, and makeup brushes as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent point. It could have been from one of the paint brushes in Patsy's tote.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought that the beaver hair was identified from PR's coat or shoes ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it came from a Beaver. duh!

      Delete
    2. Lol DocG, yes the artist brushes in the basement. Patsy was seen with makeup on that morning, so an errant hair from a powder or blusher brush could've been in her hair. Patsy said John showered that morning, and perhaps he shaved using a shaving brush. But unless that was even considered way back then...I wanted to just show to others that the "intruder" didn't need to dressed like Nanook of the North, or toting a pet beaver, along with canned fruit cocktail, various ropes, and panties for a girl twice JonBenet's age, for some animal hair to be found.

      Also, this old Colorado news link lists several people that spoke to the grand jury. All the living Ramsey children appeared, including Burke. For any that may not realize that, or doubt his interviews with Dr Phil.
      http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon100199.htm

      Delete
  4. No..just explaining my theory..Lord knows there are 1,000 posts about yours..

    ReplyDelete
  5. AS far as the paper pad goes.. I think he was in their house before.. maybe he took the paper so that his own couldnt be linked to him and his fingerprints and fiber stuff..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah maybe out of the 15 rooms in the house he actually had his own and the family never noticed.

      Delete
    2. Funny, but there were no folds or creases found on any of the three sheets.

      Delete
    3. here wouldnt be f he left it on the pad.. But I think he wrote it in the house

      Delete
    4. You flip-flop consistently with your points. So much for your "theory."

      Delete
    5. Stating possible options is not flip flopping..

      Delete
    6. Yes, your position is very convenient. If you don't have a theory then you don't need to defend it. Basically what you contend is that anything is possible. But that sort of defense could be used by any criminal. "Yes, it was my gun and yes, my prints seem to be on it, and yes I was apparently in the vicinity when the shooting occurred, but hey you can't rule out the possibility that this is just a huge mixup and the police were incompetent."

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. I have respectfully debated with Doc tooth and nail for well over a year and a half about PR's involvement in this case among other things. I am only saying this so Doc knows which anonymous I am. After basically running out of things to read about this case (I think I have read every comment on this blog, read every article and transcript ever made public and watched every youtube video and show ever made) , I decided to go to Doc's roots and look up a name I heard him mention, Fausto Brugnatelli. I think I had somewhat of an epiphany myself, not only because of Faustos sloppy work but because I just happened to stumble upon something that I caught myself by chance. I think Doc may well be right about who wrote the note, it may very well have been JR. Apparently, someone has problems with double consonants and that someone is JR. I found that to be very interesting, the purposely misspelled words in the ransom note may not have been on purpose at all. I found the work of Fausto to be quite sloppy as he proclaims that JR had misspelled Instellar when the word is clearly installer and spelled correctly. How does a professional handwriting analyst make that mistake ? That is when I accidentally noticed the use of 2 different type of Ys in the same lines, 1 being kind of unique. JR switches his type of Ys from sentence to sentence and ironically so does whoever wrote the ransom note. Is this cherry picking ? Maybe but I am going to study the comparisons more now. Also I would like to say that of Doc is right I feel (as I have claimed all along) that whoever wrote the exemplars in the deposition wrote the note. I had thought those were PR's and thought her to be obviously lying, and I still feel as if she was lying, however it is possible that she was lying for JR. I think we need to find out whose exemplars those were in the deposition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have respectfully debated with Doc tooth and nail for well over a year and a half about PR's involvement in this case among other things. I am only saying this so Doc knows which anonymous I am. After basically running out of things to read about this case (I think I have read every comment on this blog, read every article and transcript ever made public and watched every youtube video and show ever made) , I decided to go to Doc's roots and look up a name I heard him mention, Fausto Brugnatelli. I think I had somewhat of an epiphany myself, not only because of Faustos sloppy work but because I just happened to stumble upon something that I caught myself by chance. I think Doc may well be right about who wrote the note, it may very well have been JR. Apparently, someone has problems with double consonants and that someone is JR. I found that to be very interesting, the purposely misspelled words in the ransom note may not have been on purpose at all. I found the work of Fausto to be quite sloppy as he proclaims that JR had misspelled Instellar when the word is clearly installer and spelled correctly. How does a professional handwriting analyst make that mistake ? That is when I accidentally noticed the use of 2 different type of Ys in the same lines, 1 being kind of unique. JR switches his type of Ys from sentence to sentence and ironically so does whoever wrote the ransom note. Is this cherry picking ? Maybe but I am going to study the comparisons more now. Also I would like to say that of Doc is right I feel (as I have claimed all along) that whoever wrote the exemplars in the deposition wrote the note. I had thought those were PR's and thought her to be obviously lying, and I still feel as if she was lying, however it is possible that she was lying for JR. I think we need to find out whose exemplars those were in the deposition.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have respectfully debated with Doc tooth and nail for well over a year and a half about PR's involvement in this case among other things. I am only saying this so Doc knows which anonymous I am. After basically running out of things to read about this case (I think I have read every comment on this blog, read every article and transcript ever made public and watched every youtube video and show ever made), I decided to go to Doc's roots and look up a name I heard him mention, Fausto Brugnatelli. I think I had somewhat of an epiphany myself, not only because of Faustos sloppy work but because I just happened to stumble upon something that I caught myself, by chance. I think Doc may well be right about who wrote the note, it may very well have been JR.  Apparently, someone has problems with double consonants and that someone is JR. I found that to be very interesting, the purposely misspelled words in the ransom note may not have been on purpose at all.  I found the work of Fausto to be quite sloppy as he proclaims that JR had misspelled Instellar when the word is clearly installer and is spelled correctly. How does a professional handwriting analyst make that mistake ? That is when I accidentally noticed the use of 2 different type of Ys in the same lines, 1 being kind of unique. JR switches his type of Ys from sentence to sentence and ironically so does whoever wrote the ransom note. Is this cherry picking ? Maybe, but I am going to study the comparisons more now. Also I would like to say that if Doc is right, I feel (as I have claimed all along) that whoever wrote the exemplars in the deposition wrote the note. I had thought those were PR's exemplars as they were presented as such and thought her to be obviously lying, a I still feel as if she was lying, however it is very possible that she was lying for JR. I think we need to find out whose exemplars those were in the deposition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also JR writes Ramsey with a capital E as does the ransom note writer. It would be very unique to add a capital E when all other letters are not capitalized other than the first letter of name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Ramsey is not written with a capital E in the ransom note. But I do agree that there are several similarities.

      Delete
  10. I found this post in my email but don't see it here:

    I have respectfully debated with Doc tooth and nail for well over a year and a half about PR's involvement in this case among other things. I am only saying this so Doc knows which anonymous I am. After basically running out of things to read about this case (I think I have read every comment on this blog, read every article and transcript ever made public and watched every youtube video and show ever made) , I decided to go to Doc's roots and look up a name I heard him mention, Fausto Brugnatelli. I think I had somewhat of an epiphany myself, not only because of Faustos sloppy work but because I just happened to stumble upon something that I caught myself by chance. I think Doc may well be right about who wrote the note, it may very well have been JR. Apparently, someone has problems with double consonants and that someone is JR. I found that to be very interesting, the purposely misspelled words in the ransom note may not have been on purpose at all. I found the work of Fausto to be quite sloppy as he proclaims that JR had misspelled Instellar when the word is clearly installer and spelled correctly. How does a professional handwriting analyst make that mistake ? That is when I accidentally noticed the use of 2 different type of Ys in the same lines, 1 being kind of unique. JR switches his type of Ys from sentence to sentence and ironically so does whoever wrote the ransom note. Is this cherry picking ? Maybe but I am going to study the comparisons more now. Also I would like to say that of Doc is right I feel (as I have claimed all along) that whoever wrote the exemplars in the deposition wrote the note. I had thought those were PR's and thought her to be obviously lying, and I still feel as if she was lying, however it is possible that she was lying for JR. I think we need to find out whose exemplars those were in the deposition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am only saying this so Doc knows which anonymous I am."

      I can usually identify your posts, "Anonymous," because you have two "tells." You insert a space before a question mark, and you use the number 1 instead of the word "one." It would help, however, if you came out of your shell and signed off with a hat of some sort.

      I don't see anything sloppy about Brugnatelli's work. I think he's very thorough. You, on the other hand mistook a small "e" for a capital "E." Now THAT is sloppy.

      The "a" in installer is scrunched, so it could be seen as an "e," yes. But I doubt John would have made so obvious a mistake.

      John's writing tends to be erratic, as is the writing in the note, yes.

      If that document was written by Patsy it would have looked like Patsy's other writings that we've all seen. But it doesn't look remotely like any of them. Of course it doesn't look much like the examples we've seen from John lately, either. But they are written in cursive, while the court document is in manuscript style. As is the note.

      This court document has been widely available for many years as an example of John's hand. And in all that time no one in a position to know has ever questioned its authenticity. I feel sure John wrote it. And yes it resembles the note. See my post, "Some Handwriting Evidence."

      Delete
    2. LOL - this is getting good

      Delete
    3. I too noticed that John wasn't the greatest speller.

      Delete
  11. I have read your handwriting analysis Doc, that is where I got Fausto Brunatellis name. I have to say his analysis is good but sloppy because if you read the sentence instellar would make no sense, it is clearly obvious what he is talking about (installer) in the context of the sentence. I am also sorry good sir but you are very wrong about the ransom note, that is a capital E. Look at it and blow it up and you will clearly see a break in lines. It is just that the middle formation of the E blends in with the top line formation of the E making it look like a small e, of which it certainly is not. Blow this up on your screen and take a look ...http://www.examina.net/en/FaustoWeb/1.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear. Do two wrongs make a right? Anonymous was referring the "Ramsey" in the note, not John's. John's example uses both forms. In one case the e is lower case and in the other he uses uppercase. The Ramsey in the ransom note looks lower case to me, but I do see how it could be seen as upper case, with the two horizontal lines jammed together. I really don't think this tells us much.

      Delete
  12. Were John, Patsy & Burke's hands examined or photographed on the 26th for signs of injury? One would assume that the force it would take to use the garrote and to tie the thin cord might have caused some abrasions or bruising on the perpetrators hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have always wondered that as well.

      Delete
    2. It probably would not leave any marks, thus part of the point ofna garotte vs just cord and bare hands.

      Delete
  13. Good morning!

    tvest - I believe in Steve Thomas' book, he makes mention of an incident at FW's house where BR touched an electrified deer fence and was shocked. Not sure if it left any type of mark on his skin.

    As far as handwriting, I read that PR's handwriting was the only one they couldn't rule out.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  14. No..many people could not be ruled out.. Some with a closer match than Patsy

    ReplyDelete
  15. A comment I have seen mentioned in a number of places is that there was a second or draft ransom note found. Could someone provide me with some context regarding this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      The only thing I read about a practice note, was that a note from that same pad was started with "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" and then discarded.

      Someone else might know something else about it.

      EG

      Delete
  16. Anonymous EG - thanks for the reply. Was the deer fence incident supposed to excuse marks on Burke's hands or was that just offered up in some other context? I will look into that too, thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was unclear as to whether or not the incident left any visible marks on BR. I think he was asked if anything unusual happened over at FW's and he responded with being shocked by the deer fence.
      EG

      Delete
  17. I wanted to revisit the American Girl Doll topic. I found this on a blog, where a worker at Pleasant Company, owned by Mattel who makes the AGD's said that when customers called to complain about the string sticking out, they'd tell them to use duct tape to keep it down. This would also account for the various color fibers found on the duct tape as well, as the AGD's have different outfits, and for the fact that they never found a roll of duct tape in the house.

    I also added this link-- "How to restring your AGD"..--Couldn't help but notice the similarities of the string tied around the doll's neck and how they found JBR. Coincidence?

    http://www.justmagicdolls.com/articles/restringing/restringing.htm

    Also, why would Pam have removed the AGD's from the house that day?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EG I mentioned the tape on the back of the doll several blogs back, that that was what indeed the company said to do about the string in back of the doll, and also that investigators searched all over for the doll that may have had one piece of duct tape on it's back removed and found it. With the sticky residue of the tape same size as was on JB.

      Delete
    2. but again, so what. Just means John took from materials that were nearby to do the staging. It could also mean he did not have to remove the rest of the roll since there may have only been that one piece of tape in the house, on the back of the doll.

      Delete
    3. Very strange, indeed. And the fact that Pam took the dolls from the house. I missed your post about that, didn't realize you had already posted about it.

      I also read on that same blog, that a doll had been purchased using the name JBR and sent to Access Graphics in January of 1997 and was paid for by money order, therefore untraceable.
      One has to wonder what that was about. So many strange things with this case.

      I couldn't help but notice the string around the doll's head and how JBR was found. Eerily similar.

      EG

      Delete
    4. well we do have to be careful with so many of these red herring type of things, thinking they are "clues" that point to this person or that being the perpetrator. It just drives us further into the "morass" as Doc calls it, the circular thinking, etc. John had plenty of time that night to stage. He could take from materials in the house, the tape, the paint brush handle, chord (removed) the flashlight (if that was the murder weapon), the pad of paper, the sharpie pen, etc. If J and P had been in on it (the coverup) I would think there would be absolute pandemonium. Like two generals directing the war of escaping detection. I believe John acted alone, in the wee hours of the morning, while the others slept. Maybe even slept with benedryl but that can't be proven.

      Delete
    5. The doll thing is eery and just sheds more light onto what may have happened that night. When you try to put the pieces together in your mind, this information certainly fills in some gaps.

      Delete
  18. I didn't post about Pam taking the dolls from the house, that may have been someone else. Dolls plural or doll singular? Pam did remove things from the house but not right away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it was on another blog where I read that Pam had removed dolls, plural. Not sure exactly how many, but that's strange in and of itself. The doll or dolls were obviously on a list of things the Ramseys wanted out of the house.

      It's just another thing to consider, and I believe everything should be taken into consideration here. This case might someday be solved by piecing things together and not so much the evidence, as it's contradictory and can be misleading. You have pathologists who can't even come to the same conclusion based on the exact same "evidence". You have botched police work, you have parents who placed roadblocks wherever and whenever they could.
      We have so few actual FACTS to work with here, other than a dead body, a 911 call and a RN.

      EG

      Delete
    2. I agree EG. It's frustrating. Especially for those that have a strong value in their personality makeup to have justice be served (I am one of those!). Chief Bechner has said however that all of the relevant evidence has been released and gone over and short of a confession this case will not be solved. For me, I think everything is laid out there all ready. And it all points to John. When he was "dismissed" as writing the ransom note then where were people to look other than his wife, or an intruder. When the intruder theory was debunked they focused on Patsy. Then had to find or "create" (as Steve Thomas did) a motive. But then all the staging afterward wouldn't fit with that motive. So then the focus shifts to Burke. That doesn't really fit either, does it. Twenty years later no one wants to take a good look at John, just like they didn't want to 20 years ago.

      Delete
    3. Yea, and I have to admit JR is one cool customer. I could see him easily staging a murder, he seems cunning and calculating. And based on witnesses that were interviewed, he was aloof and distant. One of the housekeepers who worked for them said that PR spent most of her day making sure JR wasn't disturbed and that he hated the sound of the vacuum cleaner. So much so that one day while the housekeeper was vacuuming, he walked over to her and just switched the vacuum cleaner off without saying a word, and walked away.
      I think he regarded them as little more than "hired help" seldom acknowledging their presence.

      Not that any of this makes him a murderer, because it doesn't. However, it does give us a better idea of what type person he was based on the way he treated other people.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Something interesting in what you just said. About John may have worked from home frequently, during the day, in his home office. I just always imagined him being at his Access Graphic office all day as he said his typical day was to be at work from 8-5 or 6, with several travelling engagements. He most certainly then would have had opportunity to spend time with JB if for instance Patsy needed to run an errand. Burke would have been in school. Of course one could surmise that at age 4 or 5 JB would have been in nursery school, or some kind of preschool structure, but usually at that age, age 3, 4, 5 little ones aren't in school all day. No one asked the Ramsey's what their normal day routine was going back a few years.

      Delete
  19. May 11, 2004 John announces his run for the Michigan house of representatives 105th district seat with an excited smiling hugging Patsy by his side. There were a few protestors outside with umbrellas that read "Ramsey under umbrella" (one would presume "of suspicion"). Anyway, he lost. I'd like to see some of his stump speeches, just for fun.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In JR's handwriting sample he wrotes his name twice and once in the ransom note, all 3 are capital E's in the word Ramsey. The biggest thing I found though was JR likes to switch off between 2 different type of Ys, they switch off in the RN and he even switches them in the small handwriting sample that we have and both are exact matches, as is the whole signature in both the RN and sample. I tried to post a link but it comes up as a hotmail for some reason. Type in Fausto Brugnatelli and click on the first link, than comparisons. Doc's page here is to small for clarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see a capital "e" in the first "Ramsey" in John's deposition. To me, it looks more like a "c."

      Two comparisons between that document and the note can be found in my post titled "Some Handwriting Evidence." If you click on the image it will expand.

      Delete
  21. I see no problem with Johns spelling other than he may have some kind of glich with double consonants, particularly double SS.

    ReplyDelete
  22. DocG: I bought your book two days ago and spent all last night reading it unable to put it down. Consider me convinced but for a few remaining "curiosities" at least, "loose ends" at most, I'm sure you can clear up for me. I have to thank you in advance lest you have already addressed them somewhere in this blog. Watching at least three documentaries before discovering your web-site and then reading your book contributes, I am sure, to my desire to "fill in the gaps", so to speak, with regards to my establishing (way) beyond resonable doubt that John is guilty. The information I have been bombarded with, by my own choosing, makes it difficult to establish a time line in so far as which documentaries on TV came first, and which ones you were aware prior to writing your book. With that said, allow me to proceed,
    beginning with the first time, while reading your book, I was aware that at least one documentary came out AFTER you wrote "Ruled In".
    1) Burke Ramsey's three part interview with Dr. Phil. I have no reason to believe
    Burke said anything deceitful or untruthful regarding his memory of the events that took place the night of the murder and the morning after. However, I was struck by his lack of interest in, and knowledge of, key pieces of evidence that might allow HIM an opportunity to discover who killed his beloved sister. I attribute this to a young man who has, over a lifetime, repressed all suspisions he may have had regarding his parents guilt, individually or as a team. In other words, his psyche
    has protected him from a truth it could not handle. Two questions. a) Do you agree?
    b) What other takeaways from those interviews, if any, am I missing?
    2) One television documentary interviewed JonBenet's doctor who seemed insistent
    she had never presented with signs of ongoing sexual abuse. How do you account for that given that the autopsy reported "chronic inflammation"? Did John know
    far enough in advance of his daughter's "scheduled" appointments to suspend
    his intimacies with JonBenet so as to give her time to heal? Barring a better explanation, am I not creating unsubstantiated facts to fit a theory?
    3) I am unnerved by what John did, and possibly did not do, with JonBenets
    alleged semen-stained panties after he killed her. That he felt the need to change them obviously exposes the concern he had regarding self-incriminating DNA that could later be discovered. (Not that it matters, but could John's solo trip to the basement to "unstage" the window have included a frenetic "staging" of JonBenet's panties he decided the night before to put off until he had more time?). Either way, I can't help but believe John had tremendous anxiety about those panties almost immediately after he discovered Pasty made the 911 call. They, perhaps more than the window itself, could seal his fate, yet there they were, upstairs (in the hamper?), waiting to be discovered---and this is the important part----by a competent police force who would certainly have cordoned off the crime scene, and asked everyone to leave immediately, including the Ramsey's themselves after the body was discovered. Certainly John didn't start a load of laundry from ANYTIME after he killed his daughter through the time the police were at the house the next day. Is my angst unfounded or have I missed some reported fact or strange behavior that might expain it?
    Thank you in advance for addressing my concerns/quanderies. I hope your book soon gets nationwide attention, and I have already started recommending it on other web-sites and to my friends.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John always loved the TV interviews, loved to be in the spotlight. It was the first time on dr. phil when I saw hom really angry. He didn't wanna be there? why do you think was he so upset? he definitely wasn't the John we have seen so far.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here's another Anonymous comment that doesn't seem to have made it here (not sure why this is happening):

    DocG: I bought your book two days ago and spent all last night reading it unable to put it down. Consider me convinced but for a few remaining "curiosities" at least, "loose ends" at most, I'm sure you can clear up for me. I have to thank you in advance lest you have already addressed them somewhere in this blog. Watching at least three documentaries before discovering your web-site and then reading your book contributes, I am sure, to my desire to "fill in the gaps", so to speak, with regards to my establishing (way) beyond resonable doubt that John is guilty. The information I have been bombarded with, by my own choosing, makes it difficult to establish a time line in so far as which documentaries on TV came first, and which ones you were aware prior to writing your book. With that said, allow me to proceed,
    beginning with the first time, while reading your book, I was aware that at least one documentary came out AFTER you wrote "Ruled In".
    1) Burke Ramsey's three part interview with Dr. Phil. I have no reason to believe
    Burke said anything deceitful or untruthful regarding his memory of the events that took place the night of the murder and the morning after. However, I was struck by his lack of interest in, and knowledge of, key pieces of evidence that might allow HIM an opportunity to discover who killed his beloved sister. I attribute this to a young man who has, over a lifetime, repressed all suspisions he may have had regarding his parents guilt, individually or as a team. In other words, his psyche
    has protected him from a truth it could not handle. Two questions. a) Do you agree?
    b) What other takeaways from those interviews, if any, am I missing?
    2) One television documentary interviewed JonBenet's doctor who seemed insistent
    she had never presented with signs of ongoing sexual abuse. How do you account for that given that the autopsy reported "chronic inflammation"? Did John know
    far enough in advance of his daughter's "scheduled" appointments to suspend
    his intimacies with JonBenet so as to give her time to heal? Barring a better explanation, am I not creating unsubstantiated facts to fit a theory?
    3) I am unnerved by what John did, and possibly did not do, with JonBenets
    alleged semen-stained panties after he killed her. That he felt the need to change them obviously exposes the concern he had regarding self-incriminating DNA that could later be discovered. (Not that it matters, but could John's solo trip to the basement to "unstage" the window have included a frenetic "staging" of JonBenet's panties he decided the night before to put off until he had more time?). Either way, I can't help but believe John had tremendous anxiety about those panties almost immediately after he discovered Pasty made the 911 call. They, perhaps more than the window itself, could seal his fate, yet there they were, upstairs (in the hamper?), waiting to be discovered---and this is the important part----by a competent police force who would certainly have cordoned off the crime scene, and asked everyone to leave immediately, including the Ramsey's themselves after the body was discovered. Certainly John didn't start a load of laundry from ANYTIME after he killed his daughter through the time the police were at the house the next day. Is my angst unfounded or have I missed some reported fact or strange behavior that might expain it?
    Thank you in advance for addressing my concerns/quanderies. I hope your book soon gets nationwide attention, and I have already started recommending it on other web-sites and to my friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Anony DocG should address this. I'm just going to post this question to you. Where did you read that there were semen-stained panties? I have never heard that. Also the coroner believed the attack to her vagina would have been digital, probably with a gloved finger. Now if the perp masturbated (sorry for the graphic words) into her panties that's something else again, but I read nothing about semen stained panties. It's also just my opinion that the actual brutal sexual attack that drew blood was part of the staging, but I'm not saying that he may have enjoyed it as well. Ok, now I'll shut up and let Doc answer.

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I'm always pleased to learn that someone has read my book and, better still, agrees with me! I'll answer your questions as best I can, but of course, aside from the facts and logic that led me to my principal conclusion, the rest has, of necessity, to be speculative.

      1. I strongly suspect that Burke is not telling the whole truth about what he knows. If he had nothing to hide, he'd have agreed to meet with the police when they contacted him a couple years ago. I think this interview was arranged with John's attorney, Lin Wood, in anticipation of the CBS special. And I think everything Burke says was carefully vetted ahead of time by both John and Lin. But, no, I feel sure he didn't kill JonBenet. But he might well have seen or overheard something that John would prefer to remain a secret.

      2. JonBenet's pediatrician never gave her the sort of very thorough exam that could have revealed abuse, so his opinion means little. It's the findings in the autopsy and the many expert opinions by specialists that count the most. As far as I'm concerned, there is no way to prove John was abusing his daughter. But that's not what he would be accused of in a court of law, so proof of abuse would not be necessary. This evidence could be used, however, to suggest a motive for murder, as part of a circumstantial case.

      3. My interpretation of the panty-changing evidence is very speculative, but at the same time it does, imo, make more sense than any other I've seen. If he spilled some semen on her original panties, or even thought he might have, then, after the 911 call, that would have been a huge problem for him. If she had been found without panties, he could, of course, have argued that "the intruder" must have taken them. But the police would have been skeptical, because the ransom note definitely looked like staging from day one. So they'd have methodically checked every pair of her panties in the house for sperm.

      On the other hand, if he replaced the original pair with a fresh pair, then the police would have had no reason to check any other panties for sperm -- and in fact I feel sure they never did. So he could easily have placed the originals in a hamper without worrying that they would ever be checked. This would be consistent with John's modus operandi from the start: misdirection. The suspicious panties would have been hidden in plain sight and any sperm that might have spilled onto them would never be noticed because no one would think to look.

      Hope this helps.

      Delete
    3. Inquisitive: the semen stained panties were part of my highly speculative interpretation of the oversize panties issue. It's based on the possibility he could have masturbated while hovering over her and some of his semen could have gotten onto her original panties. Which would have been his motivation to change her into a fresh pair.

      There is, of course, no direct evidence of this, but it would explain why she was changed. See above for more details.

      Delete
    4. oh oops Doc. Just read this (12:32 p.m.) posting. I see, it was your hypothesis. Mine was he wiped down the blood, but as I said below, why would that be of concern since she still bled onto the clean pair.

      Delete
    5. Two of the three search warrants specified "stained underwear", and the returns indicate underwear was collected. The searchers would have used an ALS, and would have found semen stains had any been present.
      CC

      Delete
    6. Well, first of all they probably would not have looked for semen in the first place, there's no way to be sure of that and it seems unlikely they'd have bothered.

      Delete
    7. Doesn't matter that "they probably would not have looked for semen in the first place". Once it showed up under the ALS it would have met the parameters of the warrant and been collected.
      CC

      Delete
    8. So, CC, you are saying that they would routinely have tested every single item of her underwear found in that house for semen? I see no reason for them to have done that, though it would certainly be possible. They didn't even bother to collect the clothing the Ramseys had been wearing the night before. I think you may be giving them more credit for thoroughness than they deserve.

      And the stains referred to were most likely feces and urine stains.

      Delete
    9. Thanks for your response Doc. Motive holds a strange place in this case. While establishing a clear one is not required to prosecute it, having one meeting at least the standard of proof in civil cases (a preponderance of evidence making alleged behavior more likely than not) would make the case a slam dunk. John Ramsey's somewhat naturally withdrawn personality, combined with his uncanny ability to misdirect so as to fly under the radar, must make it all the more frustrating for friends, psychologists, and investigators attempting to penetrate the surface. One wonders how much of his life has been examined at all. Once a pedophile, we are told, always a pedophile. Sooner or later, don't they all slip up?

      With the huge amount of theories circulating around this case, it seems to me information could be leaked in such a way as to cause JR to "blink", so to speak, before his lawyers could respond.

      Oh the story those shards of glass must tell...

      Delete
    10. Doc, seven of my replies have also gone AWOL in a couple of different threads. They posted successfully, then disappeared after I logged out and came back.

      Delete
    11. I'm not sure what's happening, Ms D, but I can assure you I haven't been deleting any posts unless they contain personal attacks. You need to understand, however, that if there are too many comments on a single page you will need to go to the bottom of the page and select "Load More" to see every one. And you may need to do this twice. Which is why I keep opening up more space by adding new posts.

      Delete
  25. I agree Anony. Probably if John senses in any way he's going to be received negatively he will get back out there for another interview. Plus the books he's written. I thought on the Dr. Phil clips he looked more like he was playing the wise upper class owner of the country manor. Probably makes no sense what I just said. But I looked at how he was dressed. That pretentious tweed jacket and then down to his shoes. I thought could those be matching boots? Yep. Little two toned matching boots. He has a small foot. Hey, perhaps he owned those Hi Tech boots they couldn't find at one time.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So I guess Doc that doesn't answer my question - were there or were there not semen stained panties of JB's? I get that he changed her underwear but I never read anywhere there were semen stained panties. You are just saying here that the police didn't look. There's a difference. But then why change the underwear if it doesn't have semen on it. He didn't care that he drew blood, obviously because blood still dripped into the clean pair. So maybe one can hypothesize that there was semen on the panties, and he also wiped her down just to make sure it wasn't anywhere else. There was a blood smear on her right thigh. But also the sexual attack could have occurred earlier, not part of staging. One more thing about the oversized panty-change. I'm wondering if Patsy may have wondered to herself "who knew to get those panties out". They were new and still in the packaging. I think she would wonder how an intruder would know to go get those panties. I"m sure at some point she realized she was living with the killer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought I already answered that. NO semen was found. But the scenario I offered might explain why. And no he would not have changed the underwear if he knew there was no semen on it. But then we have no idea why he would have bothered to change her in the first place.

      As far as Patsy is concerned, there is no evidence that she ever tried to put two and two together, about the panties or any other aspect of the case. It would have been enough for her to know that John had been ruled out. If she didn't write the note and John didn't write the note, then there MUST have been an intruder.

      She was clearly puzzled at all the questions about that oversize pair, but I don't think she'd have had any reason to believe John was the one who changed her. It MUST have been the intruder, as far as she was concerned.

      Delete
    2. No, I get that. I had typed a second thing before I read your answer above. THere was a delay after your first answer to the second one.

      Ok, another question. I heard John say, early on, that he had given Burke a benedryl and sent him "back" or "to" bed. I know I heard him say it, either in some interview or on television, somewhere. I didn't read it. I heard it. But no one asked why he would give his child a benedryl. I mean I know why, it causes you to go to sleep. Of course he could have said he took it for his asthma. But this would be admitting Burke woke up during something going on or he was sent to bed with a benedryl to keep him from hearing something go on.

      Delete
    3. That would be very interesting if you can track down the source.

      Delete
  27. Let's assume Patsy knows nothing and John is fully the perpetrator.

    If John broke the window to stage things, doesn’t Patsy KNOW the window wasn’t broken months earlier and John is lying?
    Like everyone else, doesn’t she question the amount mentioned in the ransom note?
    Doesn’t she wonder by John didn’t find Jonbenet when he searched the basement earlier yet goes right to the body the second time?
    Doesn’t she wonder why John is calling his pilot only minutes after finding Jonbenet?
    Doesn’t she wonder why John says he told Patsy to call 911 when Patsy claimed otherwise?
    Why doesn’t she wonder why John was not in bed much of the night?
    Doesn’t she ask the same questions that Fleet White and others were asking?
    If Patsy didn’t use the pocket knife that no intruder could find, then John did. Why didn’t she wonder about that?

    If Patsy wonders, she goes right to the police. She had to know this was a cover up.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the police couldn't figure it out and the DA's office couldn't figure it out, and no one has been able to figure it out for 20 years, why would expect Patsy to figure it out? And don't forget: as soon as the body was discovered and for some time afterward, Patsy was a heavily medicated basket case.

      Regardless most if not all your questions are answered in this blog. The only one with any real weight is the one about Patsy's awareness of the condition of the window. She certainly would have known it had never been broken until the night of the murder. So why would she have supported John's story? I've dealt at length with that question and believe I understand. But you'll have to do some searching here to put all the pieces together. Start by searching on "basement window" -- and also "gaslighting."

      Delete
    2. Amen exactly. There is much more than this as well but this has been the crux of my argument since day 1. There is no way she could not know . If PR is NOT involved then she surely is looking for/wants to know who killed her daughter and why right ? She does not have to play detective to add 1 and 1. What parent is going to call the police and the whole neighborhood over without even thinking twice when the note clearly says not to or her daughter will be killed and beheaded and that she is being monitored ? Makes no sense at all. THIS is the only thing that hints at me of BR's involvement.

      Delete
    3. "What parent is going to call the police and the whole neighborhood over without even thinking twice when the note clearly says not to or her daughter will be killed and beheaded and that she is being monitored?"

      Patsy never got that far in to the note before panicking and calling 911. She claimed she only read the first few lines.
      Had John have used less theatrics, and gotten down to business within the first paragraph, his plan may have gone off without a hitch......not that any of it really matters, he still got away with murder.

      Delete
  28. I guess that is how he got away with molesting his daughter. He gave his son bendryl. my son has allergies and I don't even give him bendryl because I don't drug my kid up. and Patsy was either a sound sleeper or took her own sedatives.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I've often wondered about the police saying Patsy was peeking through her fingers at him while he was having a look around, hands to face. Was she afraid he would find something John overlooked? Did she suspect her hubby even that early? Or did she have something to hide. But you know, some people (I was just going to say women, but it's sexist if I do) have no natural curiosity. I would have gone over and over that note later for clues (assuming I didn't write it) and noticed there were things in there that would point to my husband. Pam Archuletta said Patsy said when she was ill with cancer the whole family would get in bed and watch movies together. What do you wanna bet they watched "Speed" and a Clint Eastwood picture or two.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I wasnt planning on commenting on here for a while, but geez, you guys are on fire with your wild theories!!!

    You say John may have masturbated onto her undies and thats why he changed them?? Lol I nearly fell off my chair when I read that. Ever think that he changed them because he knew his DNA would have been all over them? And how does he explain that. So instead he purposely chose a brand new pair that she had never worn before and was very careful not to get his dna on it. He did well except he left one shirt fibre. Occams Razor!!!

    Also..Doc said:
    "2. JonBenet's pediatrician never gave her the sort of very thorough exam that could have revealed abuse, so his opinion means little. It's the findings in the autopsy and the many expert opinions by specialists that count the most. As far as I'm concerned, there is no way to prove John was abusing his daughter. But that's not what he would be accused of in a court of law, so proof of abuse would not be necessary. This evidence could be used, however, to suggest a motive for murder, as part of a circumstantial case"

    Seriously???? So you want to accuse John in a court of law when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding the head blow to JBR. And there is NO motive. Did John ever sexually abuse his child? The odds are EXTREMELY slim.

    What we should be doing is getting John in court and proving that it HAD to be him who did those things in the basement. Forget motive, forget who did the headblow...forget knowing the full story. It CAN be proven that John did those things in the basement and that is enough for a conviction. Even if we are still debating on here who gave the headblow to JBR (which was obviously Burke...sorry had to add that :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh? And what irrefutable evidence, admissible in a court of law" points to John AND ONLY JOHN that he "did those things in the basement"?
      CC

      Delete
    2. For one I only brought up masturbating in the panties that were replaced,because I didn't know semen stained panties were found. Turns out they weren't anyway. Doc said it was a possible scenario, and since the penetration to her was digital (according to coroner) and a glove was used (since no skin cells were found other than hers inside her private parts, I could only guess how semen got on the panties. Turns out we don't know they did. So I too read things here from bloggers that I want to pursue to find out if they are true or just conjecture. In an earlier blog DocG suggested how JR could be brought into a court of law. The autopsy findings could be used for motive. The child specialists and forensic scientists in the posting CC sent to Doc agree that there were signs of erosion on the inside of her vagina and injury to the hymen. They couldn't say that abuse was chronic, but that it had occurred prior to the attack.

      Delete
    3. Actually Doc didn't say masturbation may have taken place, but that semen could have been dripped on the panties or on her skin. Hence the wipe down and the change in underwear.

      Delete
    4. CC said:
      "Oh? And what irrefutable evidence, admissible in a court of law" points to John AND ONLY JOHN that he "did those things in the basement"?"

      Firstly, it CAN be ruled out there was NO Intruder..plenty of evidence for this. That only leaves the Ramsey's. It can be ruled out that Burke didn't write the RN or make that garrotte...that only leave John and Patsy. So heck, charge both the parents even though Patsy is gone. We also have evidence of a fiber from John's shirt ON her panties...panties that were BRAND NEW. That fiber had no reason being there!! Add in Fleet as a witness who stated John saw the body before the lights came on (which was impossible) and plenty of other circumstantial evidence. I'm not so sure why a prosecution is so bloody hard to be honest.

      Delete
    5. They shared a home, which makes all trace fiber meaningless. It's proved to be impossible to determine the authorse of the ransom note. From my reading, Fleet White was behind Ramsey, and by his own admission could state only that from his angle he could not see the body given the available light spill. There is no evidence that points to John irrefutably, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANYONE ELSE.
      CC

      Delete
    6. There is no evidence that points to any Ramsey.

      Delete
    7. Ok, CC I get where you are coming from. Really, it was John or Patsy that did the basement work. That is a fact and CAN be argued in a court of law (I don't care what anyone says).

      So, all we need to do is prove it WASN'T Patsy. There is so many things which point at John being involved...I just don't see how that circumstantial evidence can be ignored. Maybe with 1 or 2 things...but we have a huge list of items of things that just don't add up and point to John (even though it's not 100% scientific evidence).

      Is there anyway to 100% PROVE that Patsy did NOT do everything without John knowing?

      Delete
    8. Apologies, Zed, but it is not a fact. It's a logical inference, which does not rise to the level of fact and certainly does not meet the threshold for evidence.

      The only opportunity to get either Ramsey in court occurred in 1999, and Alex Hunter squandered it.
      CC

      Delete
    9. And he would have lost the case and never been able to try them again..

      Delete
    10. The Grand Jury indicted both Ramsay's for child abuse resulting in deach and accessory to murder. You'll notice they did NOT indict a person or persons unknown for anything, a clear disavowal of the intruder theory.
      CC

      Delete
    11. The GJ was not sequestered and were exposed to the media hype for over a year AND, their names and pictures were published in the local paper. Good grief.

      Delete
  31. Dang, you people are crazy.. Can anyone name one bit of evidence against any Ramsey.. ONE thing.. real evidence.. Not conjecture

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have DNA that says they didnt do it. What have you got? Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have only touch DNA,utterly worthless in a court of law, and a series of unfounded conjectures to which you stubbornly cling.
      CC

      Delete
    2. I dont know where you got that idea bit DNA is one piece of evidence and its use as evidence depends on who and how it becomes evidence.

      Delete
    3. Sorry; I can make nothing from that rather convoluted sentence.

      I "got that idea" from reading case law and the various forensics journals that cross my desk: Touch DNA can come, literally, from anywhere and has no evidentiary value . . .unless it's found in a vagina, for example.
      CC

      Delete
    4. Thats what I just said.. It depends on whose it is and what the connection is.. If it was from the plumbers assistant that repaired JB sink in November, it means nothing.. But if its from a migrant worker who visited his mother in Denver over the Christmas holiday that year, it is significant..

      Delete
    5. Touch DNA has no evidentiary value. None.
      CC

      Delete
    6. Wrong... and it is found in 5 places on a dead body.

      Delete
    7. I can show you unlimited amounts of DNA from innocuous sources on any body in my county's morgue right now. Means nothing.
      CC

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. Your capacity for self-delusion and abhorrence of facts is boundless, and apparently not limited to the instant case.
      CC

      Delete
    11. CC so you are saying that a prosecutor could NOT prove beyond reasonable doubt there was no intruder that night!!?? I mean, come on, there IS evidence which proves there was no intruder.

      Delete
    12. *rolling eyes* No, there isnt..

      Delete
    13. Possibly, but it doesn't advance the case much: We're still left with three suspects and no hard evidence.
      CC

      Delete
    14. I hate to say it Zed because the Ramseys are guilty as sin but that DNA is as big of a red herring as John being ruled out. On top of that LE problem, as they have stated before, even if they got past the red herring intruder evidence is that they do not know who in the house did what or the Ramseys would have been charged long ago. You have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In saying that we all have very hopeful thinking to see JR and even BR up on the stand.

      Delete
    15. 1) There was no kidnapping.
      2) The note was written on pad and pen from the house. Same for everything else used in the crime.
      3) The note itself makes no sense with an intruder, given 1 and 2.
      4) No sign of forced entry.

      Those are all easy facts which rule out an intruder. That's without getting into the subterfuge and obvious staging of a break-in by John.

      Delete
  33. This is one of the most bizarre things I've read so far, bar none, regarding this case. I believe this is the first chapter of the book Linda Hoffman Pugh was writing.

    Tell me what you think.

    http://someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-of-innocent.html?m=1

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just one problem with Linda Hoffman Pugh's account - just when did JonBenet ingest the pineapple - before Patsy flew into a rage or after she was knocked unconscious

      Delete
    2. I can't get past the fact that PR would confide in LP by sharing her personal, private, sexual relationship or lack thereof, with JR. I was astounded when I read that. I mean, geez.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Yeah EG, it was a bit over the top. I think Linda had an axe to grind

      Delete
    4. Or she was protecting her husband who had matching duct tape.. matching pad of paper they admit belonged to the Ramseys.. had nylon cord wrapped on a stick and asked the cops if JB was strangled...

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Who also knew the layout of the house,, could know about the $118k, knew the alarm was never set and had a key to the house and no alibi..

      Delete
    7. I think I vomited in my mouth a little when I read about John's salty and hairy "member"...

      Delete
    8. Zed

      I was totally shocked and find it hard to believe that PR would confide in LP and disclose that type of personal info.

      EG

      Delete
    9. Zed, Linda sounds a little dumb doesn't she. Or a disgruntled former housekeeper. She was pro Patsy but then Patsy suggested she may have had something to do with it so the gloves came off so to speak.

      Delete
    10. I agree, Inquisitive

      LP definitely was paying the Ramsey's back, big time. Initially she defended them, saying how wonderful they both were. However, that quickly changed, hence this book.

      EG

      Delete
    11. We also have to add the nefarious influence of NY lawyer Darnay Hoffman, who convinced her she could make big bucks by writing a book attacking Patsy. Darnay was doing everything in his power to advance his "Patsy did it" agenda and this was part of his plan. I feel sure he had a a hand in writing it as well, since Linda was hardly the literary type.

      The attacks in this chapter are vicious, and reflect more on Linda's personal resentment than anything else. Even if some of the accusations are true, which I doubt, that would have no bearing on whether or not Patsy killed her daughter. Linda was not there at the time and had no right to level that sort of accusation, based purely on innuendo.

      She warmly defended Patsy until she learned she'd been named as a suspect, and then, understandably, she became furious.

      In the recent book, Little Girl Blu, Linda's accusations are turned against her in a very interesting manner, since many of her accusations hinge on things only Linda and Patsy (or sometimes John) knew. So if Patsy knew about them, so would Linda, making her at least as likely a suspect as Patsy.

      Unfortunately, all the evidence pointing away from an intruder applies to Linda as well, so this book isn't much help in solving the case either.

      Delete
  34. I now can see why JR has hidden away his handwriting from the public. I need some clarity on who examined JR's handwriting ? I have read that BPD cleared his handwriting and other times I have read that he hired his own handwriting analysis ? Surely they both did not clear him ? Also I have never been able to find a single thing on the analysis that were done. Does anyone know or have anything on this ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do a search on "handwriting" on this blog.

      Delete
  35. There was another side story to all this. Remember when they were investigating Bill Reynolds, the Santa Claus? His wife wrote a story about a little girl who had been assaulted and tied up in a basement. And they found kiddy porn on his computer. Also wasn't there something about his daughter kidnapped from their home? Bill Reynolds was cleared as they didn't believe he could have had the physical strength to do anything but that's not much of a reason to clear him. I just would like to know if anyone else followed this side story?

    ReplyDelete
  36. one more post and I'm outta here for the day. Just read that Lifetime will air a movie around end of November "Who Killed JonBenet". It's going to involve Steve Thomas's perspective. Starts with the 911 call.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I can't believe people think the intruder theory can't be debunked in the court of law. There is more evidence (proving there was no intruder) than many other cases that were successful. Intruder can be debunked in court.

    That means it was either Patsy or John who did those heinous things to JBR (excluding the head blow which massively leans towards Burke IMO).

    So there is 2 people who could have garroted JBR, wrote that RN and wasted 20 years of police time. Despite what CC says, I say this is a FACT. There is evidence.

    Only issue is pointing at John because it could be argued that Patsy did everything without John knowing (yeah right). There is so much circumstantial evidence that points to John and given we only have a suspect list of 2, I can't believe he hasn't been prosecuted yet.

    Question to people on this blog - is there a way to prove it was IMPOSSIBLE for Patsy to have done EVERYTHING whilst John was completely in the dark?? If we can find concrete evidence than in my opinion "there is no one else on that list but you" (to quote AH...and you = John).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc and I have gone a few rounds on the topic of evidence and circumstantial cases, most recently at the very end of "Open Thread - Part Ten". I appreciate your passion, Zed, but it isn't enough. Would that it were so.
      CC

      Delete
    2. Problem is that the statute of limitations has run out on aiding and abetting. And John could not be charged with finishing her off with a garrote since, as CC notes, there is no evidence of that. The assumption that he must have known how to tie that knot isn't sufficient.

      Delete
    3. 1. Assumption he could tie a knot from his navy days
      2. Fiber from his shirt was found on her BRAND NEW panties
      3. The flashlight he admitted to using was was mysteriously wiped down
      4. He found the body in unusual circumstances
      5. His phone call to get in a plane the next morning
      6. His continuous lies and changing stories
      7. He didn't go out to help the police find his daughters killer (i.e. do everything in his power to assist)
      8. RN payment $118,000...something he was willing to pay
      9. Could Patsy tie a knot in the garrotte like that? If not, that only leaves John.
      10. He goes missing for over an hour on the morning of the 26th
      11. Points the finger at everyone and anyone including best mate Fleet W
      12. And it can be proved there was no intruder

      Is any of this concrete evidence? No. But with a suspect pool of 2 (YES, TWO!!) surely it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt!!??

      Delete
    4. I love circumstantial cases, Zed, but I wouldn't touch this one with a stick. Hal Haddon'so little associates would be bobbing up and down every five minutes screaming "Objection! Speculation!" And they'don't be right.

      Delete
    5. Sorry; new phone, fills in words inappropriately: Should have been 'they'd be right"
      CC

      Delete
    6. Well if thats the case we may as well close this blog and stop discussing it then. Because there will be no new revelations and John will get away with it for the rest of his life.

      Delete
  38. I never heard or read anything about Bill McReynolds having child porn. Please post a referencs to this.

    ReplyDelete
  39. PR got caught lying to LE many times. Innocent people do not need to lie. period.

    ReplyDelete
  40. John lied as well Leigh, no need to tell a single lie if IDI. Common sense here.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "diamondlil16
    Question for the 911 dispatcher, is it fairly common that the caller leaves out the name of the person kidnapped/missing/injured?"

    Diamondlil, I intended to answer your question last week but had some difficulty posting. It’s been resolved, so here’s my answer, sorry for the delay.

    In my three years on the job, I logged very few kidnapping calls. Not sure of the exact number, probably in the range of 15 to 20. But I do recall that every one, without exception, involved a noncustodial parent, relative, or some person known to the child taking (or attempting to take) that child without permission.

    So yes, in my experience, names of involved parties were provided as essential information in all kidnapping/missing child calls. And as we all know, JBR is never mentioned by name in the call.

    But see my previous post regarding "impatience" as is commonly exhibited by emergency callers. When Patsy abruptly terminated the call (either by hanging up completely, or if you prefer, partially at first then completely a few seconds later) Kim Archuleta continued to do her job properly.

    "Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy"? Four attempts to re-establish communication. In most cases where a caller reporting a high level critical event (medical, criminal, fire, etc.) terminates the call abruptly, the call center operator intended to ask further questions to obtain relevant information. That is what we are trained to do.

    So what was Archuleta about to ask when Patsy put the phone down? Probably the same questions I would have asked, and probably in a similar order:

    Who else is in the house with you now? Was anyone else there with you last night? Is your husband the child's father? Can you think of anyone you know who would want to take her? Is there any place in the house she could be hiding? Have you checked inside and outside? Has she ever been missing before? Is anything else/anyone else missing from the home? What is her name/physical description?

    Again, these inquiries would have been accompanied by assurances from Archuleta (repeated as necessary) that police were presently in route to 755 15th Street.

    I want to emphasize that Patsy terminating the call before any of those key questions could be asked is NOT unusual. She made the common mistake of thinking that hanging up is required so the operator can turn attention to initiating the dispatch (Patsy’s final words are "please send somebody, please, hurry, hurry, hurry). And, believing help would be on the way upon hanging up, she had an immediate crisis unfolding in her home that seemed to require her attention more than answering a time consuming series of questions on the phone.

    Regarding the 911 call, I hold the opinion that Patsy's tone, inflection, choice of words, and behavior are all consistent with a mother in a state of panic upon discovering her child is missing and presumably in serious danger.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That depends on what you call a lie.. I may call misspoke or remembered better later or answered under sever stress at the time etc.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Another news.com.au article

    http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/radio/jonbenets-father-hits-out-against-burke-murder-theory-its-nonsensical/news-story/403871c78d060f3b768ad5d5d105a285

    ReplyDelete
  45. John said in that interview, “We opened the door to the wine cellar and immediately saw JonBenet lying there."

    Hey John, you must have super vision to see your daughter lying there without turning the lights on!

    ReplyDelete
  46. “She’d found a ransom note on the stairway. I checked JonBenet’s room at the same time, and we immediately called the police,” he said.

    Hey Johnny, Patsy was the one who called the police!

    ReplyDelete
  47. The BDI theory has gained a lot of traction; however, and I am not disagreeing that BR might have hit JBR over the head knocking her unconscious but not killing her, why would JR or PR or both not call 911 for medical help with JBR still alive (checking for a pulse or watching for rise and fall of chest does not take medical expertise) and instead decide to stage a crime to protect BR and KILL their own daughter to do so?
     
    In order for the BDI theory to work, BR had to hit JBR over the head and proceed to sexually assault and kill her. JBR  being dead when JR or PR first get to her is the only  way they would stage a crime to cover up a murder. If JBR is still alive when JR or PR first get to her after BR assaults her, they call 911 for medical  help not to report a kidnapping!
    GHA

    ReplyDelete
  48. Darnay Hoffman died at age 63 in 2011 of self inflicted stab wounds. Suicide. He had suffered a long illness - diabetes where his limbs were going numb. He was also married to the Mayflower Madamn (divorced). Had many controversial clients. Sued the Ramseys for 2 million over a "suspect" they had named in their book and said he could prove the Ramsey's did it but as you all may remember, his focus was Patsy. It's that pesky DNA that cleared the Ramsey's, which is going to make any kind of prosecution near impossible. But here we have a new Lifetime movie coming out in November and it doesn't seem to stop the networks from throwing their suspicions and creating their dramas around everyone BUT JR. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh good lord... but, that guy was a weirdo from the start...

      Delete
  49. RE: Earlier post about Line Pugh’s Book: I’m perplexed why everyone is quick to discount Linda Pugh’s comments about PR/JR relationship. While some accounts could be exaggerated, what if they are true?
    I have a close friend who is sweet and kind, and would give you the shirt off her back. She is a good mother. However, if she accused me of murdering her child, then some truths would come out – she is an alcoholic, has cheated on her husband a number of times, and has driven her children around under the “high” influence of alcohol. As long as we are friends, I would not share that information with anyone, but accuse me of murdering your child, deal off.
    Patsy commented (during police interview) they had sex about every 1-1/2 weeks (currently), and obviously not at all during the time she was ill. She had a surgery that cut her from breast bone to her pelvis (after chemo) and a hysterectomy when they first found the ovarian cancer. Oral sex was likely all they could manage for a long, long period of time. So, I CAN find it likely that Patsy had a discussion about that with her housekeeper.
    Pugh talks about the distance between PR/JR, which was also observed by other people.
    Pugh mentions PR’s careless housekeeping, which is obvious from just looking at the evidence photo’s. And, the statement she made about Patsy not using dryer sheets when she did the laundry, and it being likely where the Barbie doll nightgown came from (stuck to the blanket), makes perfect sense. I always wondered why that Barbie doll nightgown was in the room with the body -- it just didn’t fit.
    She talks about how strange Patsy was, and we know that PR threw her hands up into the air over JB’s body and prayed for Jesus to bring her baby back from the dead, just as he brought Lazarus back from the dead. I thought that a bit eccentric.
    Pugh mentions her observations of Patsy yelling at JB behind closed doors for wetting the bed. She makes a very good point about how stressed Patsy would have been that night.
    Pugh was in a unique position in contrast to PR/JR’s friends. She would have observed things that no one else have.
    She mentions PR’s mother calling PR a “fat cat” after they became wealthy. Plausible.
    She mentions PR referring to JR as a “a good southern gentleman.” Plausible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with that housekeepers have an inside knowledge of the family dynamic, things in the home, they overhear conversations, they see where things are left, they get to know the occupant's habits. This is why trust is so important to convey before a housekeeper secures a client. I have first hand knowledge of this, which I won't go into. The wealthier the client, the more secrets, if revealed, could be damaging. When a housekeeper gains the trust of the client they are kept on. For years. The housekeeper would never reveal the secrets of their clients. It's like a code, a code of silence, out of respect. A housekeeper never pokes through drawers or takes anything, no matter if it's a paper clip on the floor. A housekeeper puts things back where she thinks her employer thinks they belong. If there is a better way to do something the housekeeper will try and educate the employer, not resent how things are done if done differently. In these small ways the housekeeper keeps her clients for years. Of course Linda felt like her loyalty was taken for granted and she was stepped on when Patsy named her as a possible person of interest. I think what Linda did by writing her book is deplorable. Spilling the private secrets and matters of her employer for revenge and profit. And in the end, nothing of value. No one ever really knows what goes on between a man and his wife in a marriage, you can wash sheets all you want or sit over coffee with a sympathetic ear but it's like housekeeper-client privilege. It should stay private. Forever. None if it matters what Linda divulged.

      Delete
    2. And if she stole the note pads..what else did she steal..

      Delete
    3. I agree what she wrote is deplorable if it is in fact not true. She could have been more polished in her statements nevertheless. If true, it proves PR/JR did not live the lives they portrayed, and perhaps makes the JDI/PDI theories (a little) more believable.

      Delete
    4. Who's never "stole" "borrowed" a pen or tablet from work?

      Delete
    5. None of us live the lives we portray. Only our inner circle of family and close friends know who we are. And more so for wealthy people who had a standing in the community and a reputation to protect and present to the world.

      Delete
  50. Anonymous,

    You make a good point and I certainly can understand PR developing a close relationship with LP considering she was employed in a key position within the household.
    I also feel that PR may have been lonely and even overwhelmed at times, between the cancer, parenting with a mostly absentee husband and challenges that come along with that level of wealth and lifestyle.
    She may have felt that LP was more like a friend/mother/confidante. I just find it hard to believe she would reveal personal "challenges" she had regarding the sexual aspect of her marriage with the housekeeper.

    It just gives us yet another glimpse into their lives and what was going on at that particular time. Was interesting, to say the least.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Lord help any of us that would have to go through even one thing that family went through..And John is still enduring in his life..

      Delete
    2. Yep, it's your worst nightmare.

      Delete
    3. I hope that little twerp, Steve Thomas rots in Hell for what he has done..

      Delete
  51. Just finished reading from www.acandyrose.com the April 30, 1997 police report, questioning John Ramsey only, not Patsy, from the BPDA's office. Present were Steve Thomas, Det. Thomas Trujillo, Chief Koby, Dep. Hoffstrom, Bryan Morgan and Jon Foster. I'm going to read the 1998 interview in a bit. I was looking for the phrase that JR had said he had given Burke benedryl and I can't find it so I'll keep looking. Might be a red herring. Anyway several things that peaked my interest:

    1. John said he was taking paxel, and quanopin and that Patsy was also on paxel
    2. They take it at night and it can cause drowsiness, of course he's sticking to the story that he took 2 melatonin that night.
    3. Burke's bed is closest to the door, and they leave it partially open at night with the hallway light on
    4. It was John's idea to spend Christmas in Charlevoix, MI but didn't want to haul all of the presents there so had it in Boulder, with plans to go to Charlevoix the next day. That neither Burke or Patsy really wanted to go to Charlevoix, but he didn't finish his thought as to why Burke didn't want to go, only that he worries and then his sentence wasn't completed. (To me this just suggests the Asberger's Syndrome where children do not do well with a lot of stimuli, must stay focused and need structure, but I don't know. just found this interesting that it was John's idea to make this trip).

    5. Scarf seen at the foot of the spiral staircase in the sink and counter area was a scarf Beth had given John for Christmas. Didn't someone say strangulation may have been started with a scarf but then finished with the chord and garrot?
    6. Steve Thomas asks if during the time John "disappeared" from Linda Arnt's watchful eye did he leave the house? No John said. But NO FOLLOW UP QUESTION AS TO WHAT HE WAS DOING OR WHERE HE WENT.
    7. Regarding the 911 call John says "Patsy asked what should we do and I said call the police, and she called 911." We all know he says it was his idea. But we have contradictions to that other places.
    8. In the panic of finding the note John says he runs upstairs to check on Burke and "he's still asleep."
    9. John says when he found JB in the basement "there were some pieces of black tape on her legs." I didn't know this! Did anyone else know this? On her legs.
    10. The window issue - John says broken previously with his foot, doesn't remember whether he replaced the grate or if he removed it. He's very evasive on this question.
    Also he says he removed clothing (business suit) but kept his shoes on. Preposterous. You would have to remove your shoes to take off your pants - I have never been able to take off dress pants over shoes, why should he be able to? And then what, you put them back on? He offers no details on this story. Nor is he asked.
    11. He deflected on the issue of taking an FBI polygraph. Steve Thomas really pressed him on this. J thinks they may not get a good read since he's felt guilt over the death of his daughter and not being able to protect her. Hmmmmmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Inquisitive,

      WOW, # 11 really was telling, wasn't it? I mean what parent wouldn't feel guilty if they're child went missing or was murdered especially at that age. I am sure it's a common thread - "why didn't I walk him/her to the bus stop", why did I leave him in the store for a minute while I returned something", the list is endless and that's the another horror that goes along with something like this. Having to LIVE, after your child is dead. YET, most parents of missing children tell the police they WANT a lie detector test so they can be cleared first so that LE can move on to the real killer/kidnapper.
      So that makes no sense to me at all and that response tells me JR wanted NO part of a lie detector test.

      EG

      Delete
    2. He took and passed a lie detector test.. John always thought the article in the paper about his billion dollar success contributed to JB's death.

      Delete
    3. EG, Steve Thomas really did push on this. I can see that Steve Thomas does have some good skills as far as not letting up but JR was able to waffle skillfully by saying that he had heard that the way the questions can be asked can show an innocent person to be guilty, etc. Steve said well if we can find an FBI polygrapher that is 100% competent in his abilities to question and analyze results would you sit for one? JR said well, yes he would certainly talk this over with others. AGain, good old sidestep. DId you know there was also black duct or electrical tape found on her legs? I had not known that. Any thoughts regarding that? Like why that was necessary?

      Delete
    4. 1.. Thats probably Clonopin..There is no such thing as quanopin.. And they started taking that AFTER Jb's murder

      4... They were going to meet up with Johns kids from previous marriage.. No wonder they didnt really want to go

      7... What difference would it make?

      Delete
    5. Life lesson 101.. Never cooperate with police if they are trying to blame you or arrest you..

      Delete
    6. The Ramseys told police everything they knew by the 28th.. Nothing new has come out since then..

      Delete
    7. Inq,

      I didn't know about tape on her legs, I did see there was tape on the blanket, but wasn't sure if that was the tape he removed from her mouth.

      And yes, JR was coached well by his lawyer and knew exactly what to say and not say regarding the lie detector test. They both would have failed had they been forced to take it. From what I read they needed to take it five times in order to pass it, and that was with their own independent polygrapher.

      EG

      Delete
    8. No, John passed the first time.. Patsy was inconclusive so she took a second one and passed..thats normal.

      Delete
    9. Not from the FBI Leigh, from their own handpicked polygrapher

      Delete
    10. Yes, from an impartial testers that wasnt trying to accuse them.

      Delete
    11. And I believe it was the Secret Service, who didnt have a dog in the fight, cleared Patsy of writing the RN.

      Delete
    12. In the 1997 police interview the transcript reads John says he "had been" and was still taking paxel. This transcript has kept the misspelled words in so it could very well be clonopin. Moot point. In 1998 he has switched to prozac. They were both on paxel at the time of the murder. Wonder why two affluent perfect have everything parents have to be prescribed anti depressants. That would be the question I would ask Leigh.

      Delete
    13. I havent read anywhere they were on drugs before the murder..

      Delete
    14. Then do your own research. Go to www.acandyrose.com and read the transcript of the interview done with John Ramsey April 30, 1997.

      Delete
    15. Interesting that in the Hoffman deposition he just says a melatonin tablet, not 2. who takes 2 for an early flight?

      Delete
    16. I saw an interview and he said he took one.

      Delete
    17. Yes, he said he took one in the Hoffman deposition. He's not very convincing though.
      "So, it was a pretty normal night then"
      "Oh yeah, completely 100% normal...except the melatonin tablet"

      Delete
    18. I dont see where he says he was on it BEFORE..

      TT: That you are (inaudible). . . are you taking any other medications right now?

      JR: I have been on Paxel, and Quanopin, which are both prescription anti-depressants.

      TT: Okay, and the second one is?

      JR: Quanopin.

      TT: OK. I’m not familiar with that one.

      JR: It like, kind of like Adavan, I’m not an expert but . . .

      TT: . . . Okay. How much Paxel where you taking?

      JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.

      TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .

      JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.

      TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?

      JR: Right.

      TT: Right before bedtime?

      JR: Yep.

      Delete
  52. I do do my research. Quanapin is indeed a drug, and prescribed for high anxiety. It was misspelled as quanopin. Klonopin, spelled with a K not a C, is an anti-seizure medication, usually for epileptics. I always do my research. IF he says he was talking Paxel and Quanopin then that's what he said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never heard of Quanapin but Klonopin is a benzo..like valium..... Clonodine is a blood pressure drug..

      Delete
  53. I posted this on the last post, but it didn't seem to take. Earnest apology if I just missed it and I am bothering you with the same old stuff. However, this is my attempt for Doc not to think I'm crazy (#300).

    There are two facts which I cannot get out of my head, and which seem to pass by without joint comment almost as much as John and the murder: the garrote and the threat of beheading in the note. Both seem that kind of overkill like 55 stab wounds begging for an explanation.

    All the possibilities I see:
    1) The garrote and the threat of beheading have no real connection. The beheading threat was just to spook Patsy, and the garrote was because, say, the head blow failed to kill her.

    2) The beheading threat is to cover up some sexual reason for the garrote. Perhaps this is why John had an orgasm, and needed to wipe her down.

    3) The garrote was to prepare JonBenet for a decapitation the next day, getting rid of the blow to her head.

    It seems to me Doc was originally in camp 1 and is now in camp 2. I am in camp 3.

    (1) strikes me as a "patsy did it" theory where we are left with nothing but "well maybe the writer thought a foreign faction would say that kind of thing" - as if the writer wasn't going to DO anything.

    (2) makes a certain amount of sense given Doc's theory of motive, but the only objection to beheading seems to be that it's gruesome (as if killing your own daughter isn't already gruesome). Well, some erotic asphyxiation after killing her seems even more like overkill to me.

    3) I ask you what except a beheaded JonBenet would convince anyone that a foreign faction took her. And if you don't believe that's enough, look at the case of Adam Walsh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Punisher

      Part of the problem I see with the garrote, is that no two sets of experts seem to agree with what came first, the blow to the head or the garrote. I have read that if the head blow had come first, there would have been blood coming out of her nose and mouth because of the size wound it caused in her brain. So, now IF the garrote came first then we have to believe it was something sexual (bondage) followed by the blow to the head.
      IF the blow to the head came first, then the garrote was staging, overkill as you put it.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Upon death the heart stops beating and pumping blood. So it could be plausible that the garrotting came first, or rather the strangulation, then the head blow which didn't bleed out. Then Dr. Spitz said the head blow wouldn't necessarily have broken the skin. So there you have a conflict. I know I heard that she could have been strangled with a scarf, then that didn't work so well so he used the paint stick as a garrot. Steve Thomas seemed particularly interested in the police interview about Patsy giving scarves to all of their friends for Christmas, and John receiving one from his daughter Beth, which was at the bottom of the spiral staircase in a sink.

      Delete
  54. Inq,

    Do what I do. Completely ignore Leigh To. Obviously some type of plant, that I can't believe is still allowed to post here. It's gone beyond ridiculous at this point.

    And you're absolutely right, as both JR and PR were on anti depressant drugs. As we always say, this crime won't be solved based on evidence. But we just might be able to get somewhere putting all of the other pieces together. The lies are most telling. PR denied ever having seen the underpants that JBR was wearing. Meanwhile friends knew she had purchased them for her older niece--she had told them the story because JBR wanted them for herself so she allowed her to keep them. How could PR not have remembered that, when others knew it.
    I read somewhere that there were two visits to the school nurse prior to Christmas break. I wonder why.
    Also, the 911 call made from the house on 12/23 that dispatched a police officer who was told it was a mistake.

    These things are odd and remain unanswered. Did police interview the school nurse? Were phone records pulled for the Ramseys? I heard the order was blocked and that JR had made phone calls the day of the murder to the Governor of Colorado. Nothing is ever answered. Why?

    It really makes you wonder who is hiding what and how far this things goes up the ladder. Mind boggling.

    EG

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  55. Here is a link to a reader review of the Ramsey book "The Death of Innocence" -- very interesting summary. https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/55etet/the_death_of_innocence_just_read_it_heres_all_my/

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thanks EG! I did decide not to respond to Leigh Too but I wanted to be factual in regard to the 1997 interview. As any fool can see he was taking anti depressants prior to at least the interview when he says "I HAVE" been taking them. Then in 1998 he says he is currently on prozac. Anyway you are right, I don't need to engage. I think some of the statements Leigh makes are so outrageous must be a plant, or a mole, etc. More in a second....

    ReplyDelete
  57. Well, if you all know of a way I can rake in some cash for having to deal with you..please, tell me..

    Its a dirty job but someone has to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. A plant? By whom? Is there such a thing? How much can I make? Can you turn me on to who is paying?

      Delete
    3. You know, millions of people think IDI..Including some Boulder police officers.. people in the DA office.. a 30 year career homicide detective and FBI agents..and average peeps like me.

      Delete
  58. Okay, so that's interesting about the trips to the school nurse EG. Was it JB who went or Burke? There are some things I don't buy into that are said here. Like gaslighting. Or planting false memories. I think PR saw the investigation zeroing in on BOTH of them, hoped they could provide a united front, and that she could help by suggesting some white lies to keep them out from under the umbrella of suspicion. On the Larry King interview she gives answers that John feels the need to interrupt and "clarify." For one they both claim to NOT have read the autopsy report. She says she doesn't think there is any evidence of prior abuse and he says there definitely is not. I think J wanted to remain by her side at all times when going out and making public statements and doing interviews and television appearances so as to make sure she doesn't say anything not in alignment with how he presented things to her and to the world. But yeah EG, there are some things that don't add up to me. Not so much as Patsy is telling white lies but that she is hiding some things she may have been aware of. Or suspected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree with you there, Inq. JR was very protective of PR during that Larry King interview. I watched it. So much so, that he wouldn't even let her respond, he would jump in. I believe Steve asked him if PR was allowed to respond herself and JR said something like, "not when she is being attacked". It was SO obvious that JR didn't want PR talking too much.

      As far as the school nurse, I think it was for JBR but not 100% sure on that, because it's mentioned but not elaborated on, as is the case with so much of what's written about. It seems like we have lots of questions, but no answers. I wish we had been investigating that case. *L* We'd have been stonewalled right along with the BPD.

      EG

      Delete
  59. Hmm, this is interesting..FBI who worked on the case says the first RN that was crumbled up and tossed was found in a back room of the house.. I wonder if it was the same back room where the rope was found that overlooked the drive way where he could see when the headlights pulled up..

    at 3:30
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1M73eLEds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, he did say that, but not the specific room it was found in, just in a rear room of the house. I wonder how much more evidence is out there that we don't know about.

      Delete
    2. Tons, no doubt.. The furthest back room was overlooking the garage and right next to JB's room.. He prolly sat there writing the note..waiting for them to come home..

      Delete
    3. Its also the room where the rope was found, where the dust ruffle was disturbed and the drawers were rooted through. Interesting..

      Delete
    4. Yes, that makes sense assuming he was writing it in daylight.

      Delete
    5. ...or a flashlight or a penlight or by street light

      Delete
  60. As the surviving family members, if innocent JR & BR should be vigilant in seeking justice for JonBenet right? The family has never reacted as other families of murdered children do.

    ReplyDelete
  61. In 1996 we didn't have the kind of internet searches we can do now EG. Now one can do media searches,look for online newspaper indices, social media searches, genealogy database searches, county court and recorder's office searches. Trained online research individuals can accomplish alot, but some of it is intuition and perception which can't be taught. We are at a big disadvantage here - we don't have access to the police files. I think alot of what I heard in 1996 was reported in the tabloids, mostly out of frustration that the Ramsey's wouldn't sit for a police interview. But I'm happy to have any thing I heard debunked, and I'll try my hardest to find something and the truth if it's there.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yes, we have all read or heard rumors that just arent true..

    ReplyDelete
  63. Even the BPD and others have been caught putting out disinformation.. so its easy to be fooled

    ReplyDelete
  64. Frankly, I am suspicious of any info the BPD has put out.. Like the note pad being Patsys..or like they did handwriting analysis on LHPugh.. it was 4 words.. ha!

    ReplyDelete